That conversation is the stuff of PMs, muggins.:) But yes, nothing remotely shocking or not credible about the story, so far as I can see. And I never mixed in tory circles at uni but we did hear what the yahoos got upto, from time to time.:o I just hope Samcam has industrial strength mouthwash.
Well the authors claim the story came from a current Tory MP who was at Oxford at the same time as Cameron so you are wrong to allege there were no witnesses. See how easy it is to twist something the way you want it to look?
If Cameron was to sue it would be the worst decision of his career.
They say there's a witness, no witness has come forward. See how easy it is to believe what you want to believe?
That conversation is the stuff of PMs, muggins.:) But yes, nothing remotely shocking or not credible about the story, so far as I can see. And I never mixed in tory circles at uni but we did hear what the yahoos got upto, from time to time.:o I just hope Samcam has industrial strength mouthwash.
I must have gone to a better class of uni, this is not normal behaviour.
I must have gone to a better class of uni, this is not normal behaviour.
Who hasn't come forward? Are you an idiot?
The witness who made the claim has not come forward publicly. The witness you said the authors never had.
No need for the name calling and rudeness to other posters.
The publishers of the serialised book will no doubt have run it past their lawyers, anyway, so there is little chance of it being technically, libel.
In a libel case, the onus is on the complainant to prove they didn't do the alleged thing. I'd imagine that would be difficult - and impossible if you felt there might be a witness out there who might come forward, or an incriminating photo (as was alleged).
The witness who made the claim has not come forward publicly. The witness you said the authors never had.
No need for the name calling and rudeness to other posters.
All we know is that they say there is a witness. No one has been named or materialised. The author has been extremely vague about the witness. We do not know if a witness really exists. Only an idiot would just believe a rumour without tangible proof.
The publishers of the serialised book will no doubt have run it past their lawyers, anyway, so there is little chance of it being technically, libel.
In a libel case, the onus is on the complainant to prove they didn't do the alleged thing. I'd imagine that would be difficult - and impossible if you felt there might be a witness out there who might come forward, or an incriminating photo (as was alleged).
Are we to assume because something is printed and they have fancy lawyers it's true?
Has it not occurred to anyone that Cameron is being accused of rape here? A sexual act with a non consenting animal is rape. Whether it happens when you're young and stupid or not, it's a sick act which should be debunked if false.
Because the likely hood is that it's all the truth . There is possibly lots more so he really does not want other stories coming out should he take them to court. Anyway nothing that was wrote has any bearing on him as PM. Piggygate was a total non-story imo
Are we to assume because something is printed and they have fancy lawyers it's true?
Has it not occurred to anyone that Cameron is being accused of rape here? A sexual act with a non consenting animal is rape. Whether it happens when you're young and stupid or not, it's a sick act which should be debunked if false.
Sex acts with the dead are considered crimes against property, rather than rape. I imagine it's even more so with animals.
All we know is that they say there is a witness. No one has been named or materialised. The author has been extremely vague about the witness. We do not know if a witness really exists. Only an idiot would just believe a rumour without tangible proof.
Hut you said there was no witness and in what post did I say I believed this story?
Are we to assume because something is printed and they have fancy lawyers it's true?
Has it not occurred to anyone that Cameron is being accused of rape here? A sexual act with a non consenting animal is rape. Whether it happens when you're young and stupid or not, it's a sick act which should be debunked if false.
To be honest, I don't think it's even being seen as a sexual act. More of a knob-related bushtucker trial...
Seriously, no-one cares. That's why he's just letting it die.
Maybe he's heard of The Streissand Effect and/or he realises what a waste of paper the DM is and that the opinions of people who believe the drivel it prints are not worth worrying about.
Comments
They look dirty and riddled with lice!
That conversation is the stuff of PMs, muggins.:) But yes, nothing remotely shocking or not credible about the story, so far as I can see. And I never mixed in tory circles at uni but we did hear what the yahoos got upto, from time to time.:o I just hope Samcam has industrial strength mouthwash.
They say there's a witness, no witness has come forward. See how easy it is to believe what you want to believe?
Any MP's got a nice big "bonus" recently?
He doesn't want to come forward but you originally claimed there were no witnesses which was false. Maybe we should all sue you?
I must have gone to a better class of uni, this is not normal behaviour.
Who hasn't come forward? Are you an idiot?
The witness who made the claim has not come forward publicly. The witness you said the authors never had.
No need for the name calling and rudeness to other posters.
In a libel case, the onus is on the complainant to prove they didn't do the alleged thing. I'd imagine that would be difficult - and impossible if you felt there might be a witness out there who might come forward, or an incriminating photo (as was alleged).
All we know is that they say there is a witness. No one has been named or materialised. The author has been extremely vague about the witness. We do not know if a witness really exists. Only an idiot would just believe a rumour without tangible proof.
Are we to assume because something is printed and they have fancy lawyers it's true?
Has it not occurred to anyone that Cameron is being accused of rape here? A sexual act with a non consenting animal is rape. Whether it happens when you're young and stupid or not, it's a sick act which should be debunked if false.
Sex acts with the dead are considered crimes against property, rather than rape. I imagine it's even more so with animals.
Hut you said there was no witness and in what post did I say I believed this story?
To be honest, I don't think it's even being seen as a sexual act. More of a knob-related bushtucker trial...
Seriously, no-one cares. That's why he's just letting it die.
Ok, would it be rape if the animal was alive?
There is no witness. There's only rumour.
How do you know there is no witness? The authors claim that a current Tory MP witnessed it so what makes you so certain there is no witness?
Does proof mean nothing to you people?
A boss move would be not to accept donations from people with no morals.
It'd be a miracle if the animal was alive, what with having no head. (Well, apart from the "head" it was allegedly giving...)
There is no proof there is not a witness.
If he sues and goes to court the witness the claim to have may be named and have to say what happened either way.
TBH I forgot about it until you mentioned it again.
How many people are talking about it, rather than talking about this alleged encounter?